RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2136, 11 December 1890, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Geralbine—Tuesday, Dec. 10, 1890.

[Before C. A. Wray, Esq., R.M., and H. W. Moore, Esq., J.P.] FAILING TO DESTROY BABBITS. Catherine Hynes was charged, on the information of Mr Futton, Sheep and Rabbit Inspector, with allowing rabbits to be upon her land and not taking steps to destroy them after having received notice to do so. The husband of defendant appeared for her, and said he was now taking steps to have the rabbits destroyed, having obtained some poisoned wheat. He could not attend to the notice before, being unable to leave his employment. Mr J. W. White, who appeared to prosecute, put in a letter from defendant in which she acknowledged the receipt of the inspector’s notice to clear the rabbits, and promised to do so at her earliest convenience. . Inspector Sutton gave evidence as to the rabbits being on the land. He had sent defendant notice on and had visited the place once or twice since, and there had been no attempt made to clear the rabbits. He did not wish to press for a penalty, but the place was simply a warren and a disgrace to the district, and the other settlers were getting stocked from it. Defendant’s husband said they had no interest in the land, and were simply holding it for defendant’s brother.

The Bench said as defendant seemed about to take steps to destroy the rabbits they would be lenient with her. If the matter came before the Court again she would be heavily fined, as the rabbits must be kept down. It was a very serious matter. Defendant would be fined 40s and costs, with solicitor’s fee. ALLOWING DRUNKENNESS ON LICENSED PREMISES. The adjourned case against P. Kyne, licensee of the Bush Hotel, Geraldine, for allowing drunkenness on his licensed premises on Nov. 2 was again brought on. Mr Wilson Smith, who appeared for, defendant, said the witness Bates was ' present, and he was now prepared to go on with the case. Thos. Bates, laborer, sworn, gave evidence as to his being at the Bush Hotel on the night of Nov. 1, and also on Nov. 2. He was in the company of Coombs during the day, and had several drinks with him. He was not clear as to the quantity of drink Coombs was served with, but was decidedly of opinion that Coombs was sober the whole time. Was quite sober himself. In reply to Inspector Thomson be said he know James Pye, but did not tell him that he (witness) was drunk. James Stringer, blacksmith, Geraldine, gave evidence as to his being at the funeral in Geraldine on Nov. 2, and seeing Coombs being taken to the lock-up by Constable Willoughby. He took a little notice of them but not much. Coombs did not seem very bad. He was not mad drunk. He took off bis hat as the funeral passed, and seemed to behave himself very well. Only thought there was something wrong because the constable had him in charge. Samuel Gould, laborer, Geraldine, deposed to being at the funeral, and seeing Coombs being taken to the lock-up. He remarked at the time to Kyue that he did not think Coombs was drunk. He thought, however, from his appearance that he had had a little drink. In reply to Inspector Thomson he said he did not consider a man was drunk, or should be locked up, unless he was making a row. Was not very clear as to why he remarked to Kyne | that Coombs was not drunk. The Bench said they had not doubt whatever that Coombs left the premises in a ’state of intoxication. He had been seen by persons leaving the house drunk. According ta the evidence of defendant himself he had supplied Coombs with a considerable number of drinks. Captain Wray then detailed the circumstances of the case. Defendant had made himself liable to a penalty of £2O, but the Bench had taken into consideration the fact that it had not been directly proved that Coombs had been incited to drink, and, therefore, they would not impose such a heavy penalty as they otherwise would have done. Defendant would be fined £5 and costs, with expenses of one witness, the conviction to be endorsed upon the license. If accused allowed the Same to occur again a very heavy penalty would be enforced. ALLEGED SHEEP-STEALING. John Campbell, a farmer in the Woodbury district, was charged upon the information of T, P. Wooding, of Fairfield, with stealing 90 sheep, of the value of £7O, on or about November 12fch, 1890. Inspector Thomson appeared to prosecute; Mr Hay appeared for accused, and Mr F. Wilson Smith to watch the case on behalf of Mr Wooding. The court was crowded, and great interest taken in the case. All wit-ne-ses were ordered out. Thos. Percival Wooding, farmer, Fairfield, sworn, said; I own 470

acres there. It is subdivided into eleven paddocks. The paddock in which the sheep were was fenced with gorse on three sides and wire on the fourth. The fence abutting en the read is a large gorse fence. Had 264 sheep in the paddock. They were branded T.P.W. on the shoulder. They were also earmarked by the ear being doubled together and then punched. The wethers were marked on the left ear and the ewes on the right. They were hoggets. There were two black sheep. This paddock was a little over half a mile from the house, and I saw the sheep almost daily. There were a few older ones among them that I was killing for home use. On the 11th Nov. thought they were not all there. A few days after that counted the sheep, on the 19 th. Found there must be 80 or 90 short. Saw the accused on the 20th. He was driving sheep past my place towards his own home. Had over 2000 in the mob. Some were shorn and some not. Most of them were shorn. Asked him if he had seen any of my sheep among his. Said “ No.” He passed on. The next day I saw him in my yard in the afternoon. Told him I had lost a lot ot sheep. Asked me if any were shorn. Said they were not shorn when I lost them. He said “ If they are shorn you cannot claim them by the ear mark.” Asked me when they were branded, and I told him when they were weaned. He said I could not tell the wool now by the brand at this time of year. Told him it was a queer law if a man could come and take the sheep out of one’s paddock, shear and brand them, and one could not claim them. He assured me none of my sheep were among his. Told him I expected they must be up on Mr Barker’s run. He said he was going there next day and he would look over Barker’s sheep for me. Asked me how many I had lost. Told him I could not tell then, but would muster the next morning and ascertain. Next morning morning I mustered, with the result that I found 3 hoggets and 2 four tooths among the other sheep; I found there were in all 90 missing. Made further search for them without avail. On my way back from searching I met the accused, who was driving some sheep. I asked him if he had been to Mr Barker’s. Said No, he got the sheep he was driving from Webb’s. I told him I had lost 90. He said “ It’s a devil of a lot.” Told him it was too many for . me to lose without trying my best to get them back. He said “ I should think so.” He advised me to advertise a reward of £5 for them, and write to the sheep inspector. Said I did not think it was much use if I could not claim them by the ear mark. He said the sheep inspector was at all the fairs, and might see them before they were shorn. He assured me mine were not among his, and that I might go and look at them. Told him I would look round my neighbors'. On Nov. 24th, about 8 a.m., saw him at his house. My two sons, Joseph and Thomas Wooding, were there. Asked permission to look through his sheep for ours. Told him we had sought them amongst all the neighbors’ flocks and could not find them, and we kad now come to search his. He consented, and said he would be with us in a few minutes. The dogs rounded them up. The sheep were running about so fast that I could not tell the earmarks, and I told him so. Asked him to have them put in the yard. Said anybody could tell the sheep there. He assured me there were none of my sheep there as he put them all through the yards himself and branded them. Told him I would ! not be so confident if I was branding a lot of sheep. My son Joseph asked him to catch a black sheep which was there. He did so. He said “ The earmark is the same as yours, but it is one I bought at Ashburton. He said he had got a lot with that earmark that he brought from Ashburton. He told me several times that morning I could not claim sheep by the earmark, but did not say so when he caught the black sheep. I asked him if it had got a white spot on the other side. He turned the sheep round and I said, “'i bat is my sheep ; I could swear to it anywhere.” My sous came and said it was our sheep. I said, “ If you doubt my word if you like to go up to my house and ask my family if there is any particular mark about one of the black sheep they will describe the same mark to you,” Said he was quite satisfied that was my sheep by the way I claimed it, and that I should have it, and he would pay for the wool. It was shorn. I said it was very strange that black sheep should get there by itself, and he said “he could not account for it,” I said I could not see the sheep, as they were running about so fast. He said he wished me to be satisfied. He said he would go up to the Sugar Loaf (another farm of his), and fetch some down from there, and we would overhaul the lot. He went up that day, and I sent Joseph with him. They returned about six o’clock to my place, and I asked them to put them in the yard, and he objected to do so, as they might break their legs in the implements, and said I could see well enough on the road. My sons caught one each with my earmark. I said it was no use our going ou like that, as we bad to let them go again. I asked him to put them in his yards next morning. He said he had something else to do. He also said, “ You should be satisfied from what you have seen there that if you had every sheep I have got with that earmark it would

be' a very small percentage of the number you say you have lost.” I told my sons to help me drive them into the yard, and we drove them in and put them through the race, with the result we found four with my earmark. He still claimed them as his, and told me he had bought them from Mr Thomas, of Ashburton. He advised me to go and see Thomas, or he would go with me the next fair day. I declined to go. Asked him to let me put a mark on the sheep I had found, so that we should not be catching them again, and he objected. Asked him if he would get his other sheep in his yard the next morning before these were mixed. He declined, as he had to go away on business. We compirrd the ear mark on the j sheep we had found with these on the I sheep in the stable- He then told me be had bought 132 of the same earmark at Ashburton from Thomas, and that he had sold some of them. Asked him how many he had left. He said “ About 80. Not more.” He asked I me what was to be done with the sheep I had picked out. 1 said “ Just as you like- Ten say I can’t claim them by the earmark.” He then took I the sheep away. I said there was one other sheep 1 thought I could swear I to it if I could see it. Asked him if I

1 could go through them in his paddock if 1 did not disturb the sheep. Went down the paddock hut could not see it. I then left. When returning from Geraldine the next morning 1 saw two men with six dogs in Campbell’s paddock. There was a mob of sheep being driven into Campbell’s yards. I set my sen to watch. In the evening I saw the mob taken by Mr Bain to Mr Postletb waite’s yards, and I saw several of the sheep with zay earmark. Bain did not allow mete search the mob. Next morning ! went to the yards with my son, Mr Postletbwaite, and Mr Bain, 1 about half-past four. Was not allowed to examine them. Have seen the sheep outside the Court this morning and I am quite satisfied they are mine. I identify them by the condition, appearance, the black sheep, and the earmark. Seventeen are branded with an anchor brand, which is the brand of the accused, and twenty-five are branded with my brand. "Valued the sheep 1 lost at £7O, Did not | authorise the accused or any other person to take these sheep. To Mr Hay: I valued them in the woel in the beginning of November at about 15s per head. I can’t tell the valne of them shorn, 1 arrived at the number of sheep I lost by deducting the number 1 bad at shearing with what I had when 1 lost them. Had not counted up the hoggets since Oct. 8. On October 8 mustered all the hoggets I had on the turnips, and the i fat sheep’tdo. There were 264 hoggets and 250 fat sheep, and 80 other hoggets j' which were not put on turnips. The ; ewes were balfbred Shropshire and - English Leicester's. The small percentage were haltbred Shropshire, and 1 the most of the rest were halfbreds, and they were put to English Leicester 1 rams, and these hoggets in question 1 were the progeny. Hare not counted ] my sheep since last shearing except ’ those I had on the turnips. Have bought one ram and sold 241 sheep 1 since last shearing. Cannot tell from 1 memory bow many sheep I shore last i season. It was between 550 and 600 I sheep. On Oct. 9 sent 211 to the 1 freezing works, no hoggets. On Oct. 15"Ifsent 30 fat sheep to Geraldine. - The hoggets and the remaining fat E sheep, about 9,1 put in a back paddock J near the Four Peaks fence, and they i have remained separate from the other 1 sheep ever since. Sold the 1 30 fat sheep to Mr Mabin. Can’t tell the < proportion of sexes of my hoggets 1 Had two, and only two, black sheep * among the hoggets. These and the lame one were the only three I could 1 identify except by general condition, 1 resemblance and ear mark. I have noti seen the lame sheep. I used to 1 notice the lame sheep every time I took it down the road, and believe I ‘ had it up to the time they were lost. E I believe 83 is the number of } sheep I have found with my ear mark. < Some of the 17 sheep came from Mr ] Barker’sand some from Mr Morrison’s, * The black sheep with a white spot was ' a ewe. Don’t know the sex of the 1 other black sheep. Had seen them * pretty well every day before I missed * them, Did not take sufficient notice ! of my sheep to tell whether the whole * 90 were missing when I missed some 1 or whether any went afterwards. On < the 11th November I mustered for ‘ dagging, but did not make a clean 1 muster, Always had a good opinion of Mr Campbell during the time I * have lived beside him till the present case turned up. Can not remember | Campbell ever having returned to me 1 any of my sheep that had wandered to i Campbell’s paddock. 1 ■Witness was subjected to a long * cross-examination by Mr Hay, but bis ! evidence remained about the same. ! Joseph Wooding, farmer, son of the f prosecutor, said ho was aware his father had 263 or 264 hoggets in his paddock about October 7th last. They ( were then placed in a paddock by themselves. Counted them. They ' were kept in the paddock about three ! weeks. They were branded just ( behind the shoulder. The brand was , it jip ” conjoined and “ W.” (Brand produced) They were earmarked vritb the punch produced. The car 1 was doubled and with one snip two 1 pieces were punched out. Commenced ! to shear about the 17th November. ! Missed some sheep towards the end of i. shearing. After the shearing was j ;

j I over they mustered them, and found [ I 90 missing. ► Witness then described the steps I j taken to find the sheep, and gave I I evidence similar to that of prosecuter las to accused coming to their yards, j and the conversation between them re the sheep. He also deposed to going with prosecutor to the farm of ac--1 cased for the purpose of seeing if j their sheep were among his flock; to } finding it impossible te examine the j sheep unless yarded; the disinclination jof accused te yard them; the finding j and recognition of the black sheep, and tbe offer of accused to give up that sheep and pay for the wool. The I evidence of this witness was almost in substance a repitition of that of the former witness, Had seen the sheep { that morning in the court yard and bad no doubt whatever as to their j being his father’s sheep. Had accompanied Detective O’Brien, Constable

I Willoughby, and prosecutor to the residence of accused on November 28th. They searched all the sheep they could find, and found 13 of tbe missing ones there, This included the sheep from tbe Sugar Loaf. Later on Constable Willoughby and witness’ [ brother four more sheep from Mr Barker’s. They were all shorn and branded with the anchor brand. Had marked them with raddle and bad seen them in the court yard, and had no deubt but that the sheep were his father’s.

I Mr Hay cross-examined the witness at considerable length as to the numbers and description of the sheep on the farm at shearing, how they were drafted, and a number of other matters connected with their working. Witness was not clear from memory how many sheep they had actually shorn last shearing. He would not like to say within 50, but would be able to look it up. Mr Hay appeared to be questioning with a view to showing that prosecutor and his sons had made a mistake in drafting the sheep, { and that although they were some 90 head of supposed hoggets short there were iu reality bo sheep missing from the flock as a whole. Witness said the position taken up by accused was that when there was nothing but the earmark to go by he would not give up the sheep, hut in the case of the black sheep where there was another mark to go by he would give up the sheep and pay for the fleece. He could not say that accused was actually requested to yard the sheep and refused. He simply objected to yarding them when it was mentioned. Previous to the present case he had been good friends with accused and had always looked upon him as being an honest man. It would be hard to identify these hoggets if there were no ear marks to go by, unless they were specially marked. He did not thing it was possible for anyone who saw lambs in March and then again in November or December to say whether they were the sheep. They altered greatly according as they were fed. In reply to Mr Thomson, he that tbe 17 sheep which bad remained at Mr Campbell’s bore a close resemblance to their own, but the 66 which came from Newlands and had been on tbe roads considerably were slightly different in color. They first missed tbe sheep by the tally of hoggets being short. If be were at home could tell the number of sheep they shore, as they had a tally. Frank Standish, sheep manager for Mr J. Grigg at Longbeach, sworn, said that during the current year be had purchased a number of lambs from various people. [List of names with the date and tbe number of lambs purchased in each case read out]. Described the usual course taken with lambs bought for the station. The fat ones were sold for freezing, the strong ones put upon rape to fatten, and the small, stunted, weedy ones were put into a paddock for sale. Sold all the culls this year to Mr Kennington, a dealer in Ashburton. Had had a good many years’ experience ©f sheep. Had seen tbe sheep outside the Court branded with an anchor brand. Was certain the culls he sold to Mr Kennington could not possibly have grown into such sheep as those. The lambs he sold were a mixture of all descriptions of breeds. Could not say the proportion of each lot. The sheep outside the Court were nearly all second cross sheep, all one line. Had noticed the sheep with different brands outside the Court. Had not the slightest doubt they were the same class of sheep, as if they were all bred by one person. To Mr Hay: Saw one sheep among those branded with the anchor brand that bad the Shropshiae strain, but none among the others. Sheep culled in March such as he culled could never grow to such as those outside the Court, no matter how they were fed. Had been present at the final culling, and every cull Mr Kennington bought from him was personally inspected by witness. Mr Kennington sold the culls by Mr Thomas the day after he bought them from witness. At this stage (5 o’clock) as only three witnesses had been examined, and the case would probably take at least another day and His Worship wished to go back to Timaru by the evening train, the case was adjourned till 9.30 a.m. on Friday next.

A St. Petersburg telegram of November 9th says ;—“During a circns performance here, which was attended by the Czir and his family, oue of the trained horses attacked tbe manager, and bit and trampled upon him. The Cair and his family left the building. A general panic followed, and the performance closed.”